Off Topic Political Debate

After the achievements of Sir AP over a long and distinguished career, only he has the right to be called the real McCoy. I'll get my coat....

 

Last night I was watching some French news when the first reports from Nice came through. The President had been spitting feathers earlier in the day about Brexit, saying that all of the bi-lateral agreements between France and the UK would be looked at again to see how much benefit there was for this country. If the UK wished to go it alone, then they should not expect this country to spend money on helping them.
The programme I was watching had experts from both France and the UK looking at armed forces in both countries. It was alarming to hear that because of the sharing of equipment and intelligence between the two nations in an effort to save money, the UK is now operating with numbers that would not allow them to mount an operation such as defending the Falklands without the cooperation of France. With the programme set out to change the economy outlined by the new government, the reduced size of income following Brexit, there is no way that the UK is going to be able to increase the security for the country. With the UK having about 60% of armed forces that the French have, it would be very difficult to cover security needs at public events within the country, let alone fulfill our commitments to NATO.

 

Sounds like a very unpopular President has one eye on next years election, fully expect the French to be as spiteful as possible.

 

... and of course that is the benefit of having joined up security etc etc. makes sound economic and strategic sense... and has been how we have operated in recent conflict areas.

I guess you could say one of the benefits of being in EU/NATO etc

..all will have to be renegotiated... and I must say as any country affected by our BREXITING I would not feel very jolly with the UK..... and then when we get Bojo and his cronies negotiating they are not going to want to give us a good deal are they.....

 

You said the absolute opposite before. All the EU nations were going to roll over to sell us German cars (or something ridiculous like that)

 

Guess what - I am not a fan of Brexit - BUT - I think that when it comes to security issues it is in every country's interest to cooperate and share as much terrorist information as possible. No country is going to refuse to tell another about information they have on a possible attack. Mutual benefit - the EU is not the relevant obstacle. Can you imagine if the UK had info and refused to share it with France and there was then an attack and it came to light we knew but did nothing - we would be rightly vilified the world over - and of course vice versa.

 

I actually doubt that - I think politicians have been interfering for decades. We go back though to one of the problems of politics - MPs think they know best. I believe all a government should be allowed to do is set the overall budget - in an election they should specify (within reasonable bounds) what proportion of the GDP they wanted to devote to each sector - Education, NHS etc. They should then hand that money to professionals and experts to run health and education as best they can. The professionals should not be political appointments - and should carry on through any change of government providing continuity. We might then get the services that those who actually know a thing or two can provide.

 

The programme I was watching was not dealing so much with sharing information as to how we have come to agreements over the past two years to share hardware and manpower. I like you doubt that there would be any difference on information sharing.

 

Sorry I misunderstood - yes shame if we cease to share hardware and manpower but ultimately it is up to a government to provide what it needs to - and make choices on the proportion of GDP it will allocate. (tip - Trident is VERY expensive)

 

100% agree

I have spent around 35 years in NHS, and all levels of education.... and the professionals know the best way to do their job... in real terms what has decades of political interfering actually benefitted....

 

Exactly - nothing - how can a person be in one Ministry one day and then make decisions on matters affecting people's lives in a totally different area the next. Politicians should be there to set overall budgets which professionals have to comply wth - they will always nash their teeth and want more but that is part of living in today's world where demands are unlimited but resources are not. At least professionals would provide expertise, continuity and not make some of the ridiculous bumbling errors the likes of Gove and Hunt manage. They would do what is in the long term interest of the popultation and not bow to populist gimmicks

 

I know that you hate the idea of the Basic Living Wage, giving every resident in Britain (naturalised probably) a guaranteed income.

But what's the plan for when the global population increases and jobs become automated? We're not far off mankind being pretty pointless when it comes to producing goods.

 

Not quite accurate. I agree with both a basic "Living Wage" as a minimum for people in work and also agree with some lesser system of beneifts for people without work for genuine reasons. I see no point in also giving a Living wage" to people earning fully. For example say you had a basic living wage which equated to £20,000 p.a. as your downside cushion. Why also give that to a marketing executive on £50,000 p.a. putting him up to £70,000. That is the Green plan. If you gave the £20k also to everyone you just take it back in tax.

Since I was a child and we were told that due to automation soon we would all only have to work a 4, 3 or 2 day week and have increased leisure I have waited for it to happen. No sign of it. There is no indication that jobs are running out - if nowhere else the service sector will always need them. I would prefer to address overpopulation than worry about there being no jobs.

 

Unfortunately, it's true. The rest of what you say I agree with. I find it astounding that the Bank of England should have less sticky finger political tinkering than our country's Health and Education. They are not toys, but they get treated as such.

 

The point is Leo, that if you have a guaranteed income of say 20,000 pounds per annum, and the marketing executive earns 50,000 over and above this, then that 50,000 would be taxed more heavily than at present - but this would not matter to him because his 'basics' would have been covered already. He would be benefiting as well from this, and would thus not object to higher taxation. Such a scheme would replace all existing benefits, and would save all the bureaucracy which goes with those, as well as increasing spending power on a uniform basis. Another problem solved by this is the one of pensions. In most western countries we have seen a massive rise in the numbers of people being forced to reclassify themselves as 'freelance', together with zero hour contract workers etc. a whole 'grey' area of work which will be a time bomb in the future because so many will not qualify for pensions in future years. This would replace all benefits, including pensions - I would personally also be in favour of axing all child benefits because I do not see why the state should pay people to have children.

 

I believe it is better to hand out money to those you want to have it - rather than hand out to everyone and then claw it back. I agree taxation levels and rates can be adjusted to compensate and the exectuove would not have a right to complain about it. However if you decide 20k is a good living wage then you are away from the whole benefits for people in poverty anyway. You just start tax at £20k and work up with increasing rates the more you earn. A system that does not encourage those who can to work is not right for those who do.

 

But Leo, you don't understand that it actually increases the incentive to work - because people know that they are in plus from the moment they start working, as opposed to having to 'catch up'. There may well be people who decide that they can live from that basic wage alone, and do nothing else, but that exists anyway,and takes 6 or 7 departments to sort out all their different benefits. There is nothing more detremental to the work ethic than having someone who knows in advance that he has to work for the first 3 days of the week to get the same as what he would receive on benefits.

 

I think we do not need to work so much as society 'believes' . There is both a work ethic ( remember the protestant work ethic) and a push for growth and increasing production etc.. which keeps people tied to the hamster wheel....

Keeps everyone busy etc....

 

I know we discussed the BLW here before and it wasn't well received.

Looking again at it, I still think it is a good idea.. but I guess not politically acceptable at the moment as we will be paying 'slackers' etc etc

 

Unfortunately that only exists if the basic costs of goods and to leave reasonably begins at 20k.

As we know from other economies and the whole supply and demand chain, this doesn't happen and for the lazy people (not those who genuinely cannot find work/go to work) who feel entitled, you begin the whole process of feeling that only the rich can enjoy these luxuries that the minimum living wage cannot afford to do.